Slashdot Mirror
An AI 4-Year-Old In Second Life
schliz notes a development out of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute where researchers have successfully created an artificially intelligent four-year-old capable of reasoning about his beliefs to draw conclusions in a manner that matches human children his age. The technology, which runs on the institute's supercomputing clusters, will be put to use in immersive training and education scenarios. Researchers envision futuristic applications like those seen in Star Trek's holodeck."
In this episode, Eddie's AI gets put to the ultimate Turing Test when he's approached by a Gorean pedophile! Tune in for the laughs as Eddie responds with "I'm sorry, I don't understand the phrase 'touch my weewee, slave!'"
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Imagine if you were born and raised by furries who attached enormous genitals to their bodies and watched simulated porn all day long.
The poor kid never had a chance.
But if you are letting you AI out into Second Life and comparing it to intelligence there, surely you are setting the bar rather low?
It's a simulation of a 4 year old and is NOT an AI with the cognitive abilities of a mouse let alone a 4 year old human. It's just a very powerful chatbot writ large. Sensationalism strikes again!
TMM: How are you?
Eddie: Does that question interest you?
TMM: Huh?
Eddie: Please go on.
TMM: Um..."go on" about what, exactly?
Eddie: Does that question interest you?
TMM: Never mind. I hear you're an AI.
Eddie: How long have you been an ai?
TMM: No...*you're* the AI. I'm a real live boy.
Eddie: Does it please you to believe I am a real live boy?
TMM: You're not listening to me.
Eddie: How long have you been not listening to you?
TMM: That's it. I'm done.
Eddie: Does it please you to believe I am done?
TMM: AAAAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!
Eddie: Please go on.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Imagine a beowolf cluster of four year olds!
What's that, you teach preschool? (shudder)
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Oh come on, it's a chatbot not an AI. I did my Computing degree, I know how AI on computers is supposed to work and it's seriously laughable for anything more complex than extremely primitive, less-than-insect intelligence. You'll see AI "geese" flocking, you'll see AI "ants" making a good path, planning ahead and fending each other off but none of it is actually "AI".
AI at the moment consists of trying to cram millions of years of evolution, billions of pieces of information and decades of years of "actual learning/living time", from an organism capable of outpacing even the best supercomputers even when it's just a single-task (e.g. Kasparov vs Deeper Blue wasn't easy and I'd state that it was still a "win" for Kasparov in terms of the actual methods used) - let's not even mention a general-purpose AI - where just the data recorded by said organism in even quite a small experience or skillset is so phenomenally huge that we probably couldn't store it unless Google helped, into something that a research student can do in six months on a small mainframe. It's not going to work.
Computers work by doing what they are told, perfectly, quickly and repeatably. Now that is, in effect, how our bodies are constructed at the molecular/sub-molecular level. But as soon as you try to enforce your knowledge onto such a computer, you either create a database/expert system or a mess. It might even be a useful mess, sometimes, but it's still a mess and still not intelligence.
The only way I see so-called "intelligence" emerging artificially (let's say Turing-Test-passing but I'm probably talking post-Turing-Test intelligence as well) is if we were to run an absolutely unprecedented, enormous-scale genetic algorithm project for a few thousand years straight. That's the only way we've ever come across intelligence, from evolved lifeforms, which took millions of years to produce one fairly pathetic example that trampled over the rest of the species on the planet.
We can't even define intelligence properly, we've never been able to simulate it or emulate it, let alone "create" it. We have one fairly pathetic example to work from with a myriad of lesser forms, none of which we've ever been able to surpass - we might be able to build "ant-like" things but we've never made anything as intelligent as an ant. That doesn't mean we should stop but we should seriously think about exactly how we think "intelligence" will just jump out at us if we get the software right.
You can't "write" an AI. It's silly to try unless you have very limited targets in mind. But one day we might be able to let one evolve and then we could copy it and "train" it to do different things.
And every chatbot I ever tried has serious problems - They can't reason gobbledegook properly because they can't spot patterns. That's the bit that shows a sign of real intelligence, being able to spot patterns in most things. If you started talking in Swedish to an English-only chatbot, it blows its mind. If you started talking in Swedish to an English person, they'd be trying to work out what you said, using context and history of the conversation to attempt to learn your language, try to re-start the conversation from a known base ("I'm sorry, could you start again please?" or even just "Hello?" or "English?"), or give up and ignore you. The bots can't get close to that sort of reasoning.
how large Eddie's memory requirements had become? I'd like to find out more about the programming and backend logic/memory requirements/usage. Interestingly, a cockroach can survive on it's own (small brain), but a 4 year old human cannot. AI of this level is hardly a life form. So, even an experiment that would die if not looked after takes a 'super computer' ?
Perhaps not a good way to put things, but 4 years old is not very interactive on a pragmatism scale.
Eddie has to know very little about locomotion and physical world interaction for SL, not to mention that whole zero need for voice recognition. People type pretty badly, but it limits what they say as well, thus bounding the domain of interactions.
This story seems to indicate that even minimal success with AI here requires HUGE memory/computational capacities, and that is not very promising.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Turing Test (New Yorker version):
Human: Pardon me, can you --
AI: F*** off, can't you see I'm busy?
.
.
.
Result: Pass
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.